In article , Gunner says...

Google turns up some very tantalizing bits and pieces about this great
man.

There *is* nothing new under the sun. g

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 3 Jul 2004 10:38:58 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Thats not pathogenisis in a single gender. Thats called ****ing.

You mean "pa*r*thenogenisis." Pathogens are disease causing
organisms. Well, OK. A toddler in daycare is indeed a disease
causing organism. Anyone who has a kid in pre-school understands
this the hard way.

Indeed G

****ing is is quite a natural way for the the species to reproduce.
That's how folks are wired. Pretending that it it just won't happen
because some 'important person' gives the magic incantation of
"just say no" is the height of idiocy.

Jim


Of course, and I indicated that abstinence is not particularly viable
in this society. But murdering your children is also not particularly
desirable.

Gunner

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On 3 Jul 2004 10:35:02 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Ok. Then you have the right to butcher your daughter (subject to your
wife's approval. Correct?

I missed the part where the constitution says that a zygote
is a person. By all means point that out to me.

Jim

Will a zygote, when allowed to naturally grow, become an adult?

Please point out where in the Constitution it indicates that murder
for the hell of it is legal?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In article , Gunner says...

I missed the part where the constitution says that a zygote
is a person. By all means point that out to me.

Will a zygote, when allowed to naturally grow, become an adult?

That's my trick ear there, Gunner. I think you gave me
a cite about teh constitution, maybe the bill of rights.
It was for the exact section that says when a fertilized
egg becomes a person. I must have missed it.

Could you please repeat it for me?

Thanks.

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 19:03:28 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:11:12 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:10:22 GMT, Strabo wrote:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch12s25.html

No discussion of real property there.

You sure revealed ole Ben! He always did have a thing for royalty
and fancy trappings. Guess that's why he wasn't invited to some
of the meetings. :-)

He also had a "thing" for pubescent little girls. Which was
considered slightly eccentric, but legal in those days. From various
sources, he satisfied his tastes visa vis young girls in France, for a
very long time....

I hadn't heard that. When he was our representative to the French
Court, he was, IIRC, in his seventies. Even then, he was reputed to be
quite the ladies' man, but with the ladies of the Court, not little
girls. Got a source for his alleged paedophilia?

Jeff

Ill do a detailed search shortly. Keep in mind however..that when it
was proper and legal to marry a 13 yr old girl, etc...it was not
considered pedophilia. That was quite common in those days.

One of my favorite sayings about Franklin...

A pretty young French woman once tapped him on his ample pot belly and
said Dr. Franklin, "if this were on a young woman, we would know what
to think".
He replied " Half an hour ago, mademoiselle, it WAS on a young woman.
Now what do you think?"

http://www.libertymatters.org/libert...summer01-6.htm
"Franklin also earned a reputation as a philanderer, often seen in the
European brothels while serving as America’s Ambassador of France.
Although Franklin claims his wife changed his habits and made him an
honest man, history has accounted for this part of his life
differently."

Franklin was a member in good standing of the Hellfire Club, which was
a very famous S&M brothel of its time as well..

Google turns up some very tantalizing bits and pieces about this great
man.

Gunner



That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

He shouldn't have named his almanac "Poor Dick's".

Strider

On 3 Jul 2004 13:40:01 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

I missed the part where the constitution says that a zygote
is a person. By all means point that out to me.

Will a zygote, when allowed to naturally grow, become an adult?

That's my trick ear there, Gunner. I think you gave me
a cite about teh constitution, maybe the bill of rights.
It was for the exact section that says when a fertilized
egg becomes a person. I must have missed it.

Could you please repeat it for me?

Thanks.

A baby is a person, A child is a person. A teen ager is a person. A
young adult is a person. A middle aged fellow with a Harley is a
person. A seasoned citizen is a person. An oldster is a person. A old
person..is a person.

What do the above all have in common with a human zygote? They are
all the same person in different stages of its life cycle.

Where is that person mentioned in the Constitution? See the
term..We, The People....(singular, one of, each, Mark 1, Mod 0)

Gunner


================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In article , Gunner says...

A baby is a person, A child is a person. A teen ager is a person. A
young adult is a person. A middle aged fellow with a Harley is a
person. A seasoned citizen is a person. An oldster is a person. A old
person..is a person.

What do the above all have in common with a human zygote? They are
all the same person in different stages of its life cycle.

That's a very lovely opinion. For you to have.

Interestingly that is not how the constitution views the
issue.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

There does not seem to be any good solution. If the U.S. regulated
drug prices there would be less incentive to develop new drugs. And I
am sure no one would like to see all the drug developed in the last
twenty years say disappear.

On the other hand the U.S. should not be the only developed country
that supports the development of new drugs. The Big Pharma companies
aren't stupid so there must be a good reason for the big expense on
marketing. Maybe what is needed is regulation on how the marketing is
done. No advertising to the public of drugs that require a
prescription?????????? No " hiring of doctors as consultants ".
Not sure what else would be required to get the drug companies to cut
back on marketing and still work on new drugs.

I would be for letting the drug companies account for foreign sales
separately for third world countries, but not for countries as Canada,
Germany, France etc.
But how does one draw that line? Should it be a hard line or a
sliding scale.
Germany is different from France, France is different from Poland,
Poland is different from Kenya?

How to encourage new drug development and not have the U.S. do all
the heavy lifting.

I would like to pay less for drugs, but I also want drugs developed
for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. If I get Alzheimers, I don't care
how much the drug costs, I want one that works.

If there was an easy solution , we wouldn't have this discussion.

Dan


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:83DFc.22565

The US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't regulate drug
prices. Thus, our Big Pharma companies sock us with the full weight of their
up-front costs. By the way, money spent by Big Pharma on marketing is
roughly twice their entire research and development budget, including the
budget for getting FDA approvals.

By accounting for foreign sales separately they can show a profit on foreign
operations, even when drug prices are less than half those in the US, by,
first, using the FDA approval data for foreign approvals, while showing all
of those expenses in US operations; and, second, by treating all such sales
are marginal income, with nearly all expenses charged to US operations.

It's a really neat business.

Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

A baby is a person, A child is a person. A teen ager is a person. A
young adult is a person. A middle aged fellow with a Harley is a
person. A seasoned citizen is a person. An oldster is a person. A old
person..is a person.

What do the above all have in common with a human zygote? They are
all the same person in different stages of its life cycle.

That's a very lovely opinion. For you to have.

Interestingly that is not how the constitution views the
issue.

Jim has a good point. Though at the time it was written, I hardly think the
issue of abortion was in the framer's minds. When they thought 'person',
the concept of someone weedwacking then sucking the remains of a baby out of
a pregnant woman wasn't an issue.

Joel. phx

But then they were OK with the concept of serfs and slaves, so maybe it is
OK to drown a kid in the bathtub.


Jim

On 4 Jul 2004 09:46:45 -0700, (Dan Caster) wrote:
There does not seem to be any good solution. If the U.S. regulated
drug prices there would be less incentive to develop new drugs. And I
am sure no one would like to see all the drug developed in the last
twenty years say disappear.

Government price controls are probably not desirable. Opening up
the market to free competition, however, probably is a good idea. It
tends to work in other industries.

On the other hand the U.S. should not be the only developed country
that supports the development of new drugs. The Big Pharma companies
aren't stupid so there must be a good reason for the big expense on
marketing. Maybe what is needed is regulation on how the marketing is
done. No advertising to the public of drugs that require a
prescription?????????? No " hiring of doctors as consultants ".

Again, trampling on the companies' free commercial speech rights is
probably a bad idea. No one else seems to be informing the consumer
about what drugs are available, and what they do. Advertising does
serve the positive function of educating the consumer. But perhaps
all drug advertising could be required to prominently list the price per
dose. This would foster the sort of price competition which would drive
down consumer prices.

Not sure what else would be required to get the drug companies to cut
back on marketing and still work on new drugs.

A free competitive market has always spurred innovation.

I would be for letting the drug companies account for foreign sales
separately for third world countries, but not for countries as Canada,
Germany, France etc.
But how does one draw that line? Should it be a hard line or a
sliding scale.
Germany is different from France, France is different from Poland,
Poland is different from Kenya?

Now you're getting into the area of tax policy and government induced
income redistribution. I'd prefer to abolish the corporate income tax,
so such accounting dodges are unnecessary in the first place. The
drug companies would then do what any other free market company
would do, charge what any particular free and open market was willing
to bear.

I would like to pay less for drugs, but I also want drugs developed
for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. If I get Alzheimers, I don't care
how much the drug costs, I want one that works.

The notion that there is, or ought to be, a pill for every ill basically
arose in the 1950s. But it isn't necessarily true. Drugs aren't the
answer to every medical problem. Many of the drugs currently on
the market wouldn't be there if good information about their cost
effectiveness, or lack of same, were widely available to the consumer.
Many drugs are only marginally effective, and often have side effects
worse than what they are touted to fix.

As concrete example, the statins that Gunner is trying to find cheaper
are now understood to be less effective, and more risky, than was previously
believed. The whole field of hormone replacement therapy has come into
question. Allergy drugs with life threatening side effects have become
popular, despite the fact that sneezing is rarely fatal. Recreational drugs
like Viagra are wildly popular, even though there are risks associated with
them, and many people don't actually need them. Etc.

But the "I don't care how much the drug costs, I want one that works"
attitude of the public is a prime reason why drugs cost so much. Desperate
people will accept any sort of gouging out of fear. The drug companies
exploit those fears. Doctors are *supposed* to be dispassionate third
parties who mitigate that exploitation. But in recent years, many doctors
have become defacto co-conspirators with the drug company marketing
people, to push dubious drugs on the public.

Reminds me of the story of the two dudes on a camping trip. One gets
bitten on the butt by a rattler. The other calls the doctor on his cell to
find out what to do. The bitten one asks, "What'd he say?" His friend
says, "He said you're going to die, Roy." Sometimes the cure is more
costly than society is willing to pay.

Gary

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 10:20:36 -0700, "Joel Corwith" wrote:
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

A baby is a person, A child is a person. A teen ager is a person. A
young adult is a person. A middle aged fellow with a Harley is a
person. A seasoned citizen is a person. An oldster is a person. A old
person..is a person.

What do the above all have in common with a human zygote? They are
all the same person in different stages of its life cycle.

That's a very lovely opinion. For you to have.

Interestingly that is not how the constitution views the
issue.

Jim has a good point. Though at the time it was written, I hardly think the
issue of abortion was in the framer's minds. When they thought 'person',
the concept of someone weedwacking then sucking the remains of a baby out of
a pregnant woman wasn't an issue.

Actually, abortion was fairly common in the 18th century, and even much
earlier.

From "Abortion in Law, History, and Religion":

"In 1955, the anthropologist George Devereux demonstrated that abortion
has been practised in almost all human communities from the earliest times.(1)
The patterns of abortion use, in hundreds of societies around the world since
before recorded history, have been strikingly similar. Women faced with
unwanted pregnancies have turned to abortion, regardless of religious or
legal sanction and often at considerable risk.(2) Used to deal with upheavals
in personal, family, and community life, abortion has been called a "fundamental
aspect of human behaviour".(3)"

"In primitive tribal societies, abortions were induced by using poisonous herbs,
sharp sticks, or by sheer pressure on the abdomen until vaginal bleeding occurred.
Abortion techniques are described in the oldest known medical texts.(2) The ancient
Chinese and Egyptians had their methods and recipes to cause abortion, and Greek
and Roman civilizations considered abortion an integral part of maintaining a stable
population. Ancient instruments, such as the ones found at Pompeii and Herculaneum,
were much like modern surgical instruments. The Greeks and Romans also had
various poisons administered in various ways, including through tampons."

"Socrates (4), Plato and Aristotle (2) were all known to suggest abortion. Even
Hippocrates, who spoke against abortion because he feared injury to the woman,
recommended it on occasion by prescribing violent exercises. (2) Roman morality
placed no social stigma on abortion."

1. George Devereux, "A Typological Study of Abortion in 350 Primitive, Ancient
and Pre-Industrial Societies", in Therapeutic Abortion, ed. Harold Rosen, New York:
The Julian Press Inc., 1954.

2. H.P. David, "Abortion Policies", in Abortion and Sterilization: Medical and
Social Aspects, J.E. Hodgson, ed., Grune and Stratton, New York, 1981, pp.1-40.

3. Nan Chase, "Abortion: A Long History Can’t Be Stopped", Vancouver Sun,
May 1, 1989.

4. Wendell W. Watters, "Compulsory Parenthood: the Truth about Abortion",
McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1976, p.52.

So as you can see, abortion has a long history, and the Founders, being for
the most part well read men of Classical education, were well aware of the
practice.

The Founders, and most people throughout history, had the same notion
of what a person is that many rational people hold today. A person is a
biological entity capable of sustaining life on its own without the biological
necessity of being parasitic on a host. In other words, a person becomes
a person, registerable by the taxing authorities, when it draws its first
independent breath.

When the taxing authorities start issuing zygotes Social Security numbers,
then the State will have recognized zygotes as independent persons. To
date that has not happened in any country in the world. Even the Catholic
Church, long a foe of abortion, won't list zygotes on its roles as parishioners.
Implicitly by deeds, if not explicitly by words, they've long recognized that
zygotes aren't actually persons until they are born alive.

Gary

On 4 Jul 2004 07:44:28 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

A baby is a person, A child is a person. A teen ager is a person. A
young adult is a person. A middle aged fellow with a Harley is a
person. A seasoned citizen is a person. An oldster is a person. A old
person..is a person.

What do the above all have in common with a human zygote? They are
all the same person in different stages of its life cycle.

That's a very lovely opinion. For you to have.

Actually not an opinion Jim. Its called Biology. Now Im sure that you
have had some contact with that science, even it if was studying the
life cyle of the frog in the 1st grade.

Interestingly that is not how the constitution views the
issue.

Jim


The Constitution doesnt address that particular issue, as no one in
those times would consider a baby to be any thing less than human.

Or are you saying that the "people" mentioned so many times in the
Constitution, are not human?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 10:20:36 -0700, "Joel Corwith"
wrote:


"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

A baby is a person, A child is a person. A teen ager is a person. A
young adult is a person. A middle aged fellow with a Harley is a
person. A seasoned citizen is a person. An oldster is a person. A old
person..is a person.

What do the above all have in common with a human zygote? They are
all the same person in different stages of its life cycle.

That's a very lovely opinion. For you to have.

Interestingly that is not how the constitution views the
issue.

Jim has a good point. Though at the time it was written, I hardly think the
issue of abortion was in the framer's minds. When they thought 'person',
the concept of someone weedwacking then sucking the remains of a baby out of
a pregnant woman wasn't an issue.

Joel. phx

But then they were OK with the concept of serfs and slaves, so maybe it is
OK to drown a kid in the bathtub.

Not ok with serfs, but they were indeed with slaves. At the least,
they were considered 2/3 of a human. And one should further
note..that not all slaves, were black in those times. And
historically..most were not., but I digress.

Jim and others here like to use thread drift to deflect away from the
hard realities of their beliefs. Shrug..at one time it was quite
legal to put 7 million Jews into the ovens as they were officially
called sub humans, or not humans at all. But did that redefinition
make the Jew any less human in fact or in deed? Or were they simply 7
million tissue masses and of no import?

Shrug.

Gunner, pro choice


Jim


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In article , Gunner says...

legal to put 7 million Jews into the ovens

drivel snipped

I like that technique. I may be using it more
in the future. Thanks!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gary Coffman says...

The Founders, and most people throughout history, had the same notion
of what a person is that many rational people hold today. A person is a
biological entity capable of sustaining life on its own without the biological
necessity of being parasitic on a host. In other words, a person becomes
a person, registerable by the taxing authorities, when it draws its first
independent breath.

When the taxing authorities start issuing zygotes Social Security numbers,
then the State will have recognized zygotes as independent persons. To
date that has not happened in any country in the world. Even the Catholic
Church, long a foe of abortion, won't list zygotes on its roles as parishioners.
Implicitly by deeds, if not explicitly by words, they've long recognized that
zygotes aren't actually persons until they are born alive.

I suspect that this is pretty much how the US courts view the matter
at the moment.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

... are you saying that the "people" mentioned so many times in the
Constitution, are not human?

You miss the point. The people mentioned by the authors were
those who had already been born. There's ample evidence for
that. *Aside* from what the courts say about the issue today.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Thank you for the cites. Based upon thus there is no reasonable basis for
"double" homicide when one is a non-person.

Joel. phx

Now, is anyone working on a metal project?

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 10:20:36 -0700, "Joel Corwith" wrote:
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

A baby is a person, A child is a person. A teen ager is a person. A
young adult is a person. A middle aged fellow with a Harley is a
person. A seasoned citizen is a person. An oldster is a person. A old
person..is a person.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 15:32:15 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

The Founders, and most people throughout history, had the same notion
of what a person is that many rational people hold today. A person is a
biological entity capable of sustaining life on its own without the biological
necessity of being parasitic on a host. In other words, a person becomes
a person, registerable by the taxing authorities, when it draws its first
independent breath.

Turn a 2 yr old loose in the open, give it no help and lets see if it
survives on its own.

Interesting definition though. Work that one up yourself?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 15:32:15 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

Even the Catholic
Church, long a foe of abortion, won't list zygotes on its roles as parishioners.
Implicitly by deeds, if not explicitly by words, they've long recognized that
zygotes aren't actually persons until they are born alive.

Gary

Wasnt it the Catholic Church that only a few years ago sorta kinda
finally appologized for having Galaleo branded a Heritic and
imprisoned for claiming the Earth was round?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In article , Gunner says...

Wasnt it the Catholic Church

Hmm. Two replies to the same post from gary. You
*must* be getting worked up here.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gunner wrote:

ary

Wasnt it the Catholic Church that only a few years ago sorta kinda
finally appologized for having Galaleo branded a Heritic and
imprisoned for claiming the Earth was round?

Gunner


No Gunner. It was claiming the sun, not the earth, was the center of
the solar system. ( I think ) :-)
...lew...

On 4 Jul 2004 14:11:51 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

... are you saying that the "people" mentioned so many times in the
Constitution, are not human?

You miss the point. The people mentioned by the authors were
those who had already been born. There's ample evidence for
that. *Aside* from what the courts say about the issue today.

Jim

So you are claiming that if its not born, its not human?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

"Lawrence Glickman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:53:53 GMT, "Jeff Lowe"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:42:11 GMT, yourname wrote:
Looks like the Abortion Holocaust is nearly keeping up with the
Germans during their best years...
Number of Abortions Performed in the United States
(AGI) (CDC)
1973 744,600 615,831
1974 898,600 763,476
1975 1,034,200 854,853
1976 1,179,300 988,267
1977 1,316,700 1,079,430
1978 1,409,600 1,157,776
1979 1,497,700 1,251,921
1980 1,553,900 1,297,606
1981 1,577,300 1,300,760
1982 1,573,900 1,303,980
1983 1,575,000 1,268,987
1984 1,577,200 1,333,521
1985 1,588,600 1,328,570
1986 1,574,000 1,328,112
1987 1,559,100 1,353,671
1988 1,590,800 1,371,285
1989 1,566,900 1,396,658
1990 1,608,600 1,429,577
1991 1,556,500 1,388,937
1992 1,528,900 1.359,145
1993 1,500,000 1,330,414
1994 1,431,000 1,267,415
1995 1,363,690 1,210,883
1996 1,365,730 1,221,585
1997 1,365,730 (NRLC estimate)
1998 1,365,730 (NRLC estimate.)
1999 1,365,730 (CIRTL estimate.)
40 MILLION ABORTIONS SINCE 1973
4,000 each day

I know it goes against a good **** stir and does not support the moral
outrage of the Reactionary Right or the christian fundamentalists that
have hijacked the mantle of conservatism, but with the bare minimal of
effort (first google hit in [abortion rates])one can see that abortion
rates
are going down: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html
Never let mere facts get in the way of a good rant.

Should abortion be discouraged? Yes, of course it should, but to ban it
would be to impose a very narrow interpretation of just one religion on
the whole population. Kind of seems like "Establishing" to me.
Jeff

Don't you have a Mind that is capable of operating outside established
ideological dogma? Can't you make an ethical / moral decision without
consulting a bible?

This is the kind of mentality that scares the crap out of me. People
incapable of independent thinking. Oh you can get from point A to
point B if you follow somebody else's roadmap. But how about trying
to be a man, and get there on your -own-.

Lg
Well said!
Unfortunately this kind of reasoned statement/suggestion falls on barren
ground. It cannot be understood by the very people that need to understand
it.

A very interesting exercise;
The next time one of the 'representatives' of (insert the religious
organization de-jour) knocks on your door invite him to expound on his/her
ideas - *but* - forbid any book reference (bible, koran or whatever - this
includes quoting the 'profits' unless said quote was obtained first-hand ).
Any such reference will be cause for ending the session.
I guarantee the interview will be over in seconds!
Regards.
Ken.

Ken Davey wrote:

The next time one of the 'representatives' of (insert the religious
organization de-jour) knocks on your door invite him to expound on his/her
ideas -

My Father-in-law had an interesting way of dealing with such
"visitors". He asked them:
How many wars have been sarted over religion?
How many wars have been fought over mathematics?

The "visitors" exhibited a tendency to be elsewhere. :-)

Ted

"Friday" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:53:53 GMT, "Jeff Lowe"
wrote:

snip


Should abortion be discouraged? Yes, of course it should, but to ban
it
would be to impose a very narrow interpretation of just one religion
on
the whole population. Kind of seems like "Establishing" to me.
Jeff


I don't see this as a religious issue so much as a _Pure Constitutional
Argument_ - as much as some people would like it to be.

All religious considerations aside: A woman mosy certainly has a right
to her liberty and pursuit of happiness, while a child most certainly
has his or her right to life. _Both_ are inalienabale and unarguable
rights clearly defined in the US Constitution.

The _BIG_ question (as it's ultimately boiled down to) is defining " a
human." Is an egg a human, and thus entitled to the rights guaranteed
in the Constitution? When the egg meets a sperm and the cell spilts
does it then become entitled to the right to life? At 3 months? Three
days? Not until it leaves the womb?

This issue has troubled me for as long as I've been aware of it. I
would _NOT_ want to be a Justice of the SCOTUS, having to struggle with
this one.

They didn't have to struggle with it. Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of
default in a potential conflict of rights. The 14th Amendment Due Process
rights, which are the relevant ones, are not established under law nor under
the Constitution for prenatal life. (In the actual decision of this case,
that meant that the state of Texas had no compelling right to prevent an
abortion.) OTOH, the rights of a woman to life and to privacy are
established under law.

As the justices themselves said (from the majority opinion of Roe, written
by Blackman): "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine,
philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the
judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a
position to speculate as to the answer."

Ed Huntress

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:21:09 GMT, Ted Edwards
wrote:

Ken Davey wrote:

The next time one of the 'representatives' of (insert the religious
organization de-jour) knocks on your door invite him to expound on his/her
ideas -

My Father-in-law had an interesting way of dealing with such
"visitors". He asked them:
How many wars have been sarted over religion?
How many wars have been fought over mathematics?

The "visitors" exhibited a tendency to be elsewhere. :-)

Ted

The trouble/problem with most/all religions is that they pre-empt
personal decision making and personal responsibility.

A devout anybody has become enslaved to the rules and regulations as
laid forth in the texts. There is comfort in following these texts
for many people, as it absolves them of the difficulty of answering
the Difficult Questions and absolves them therefore of any
responsibility for the outcome of their actions.

At the moment they surrender their free will to the dogma, they cease
to be a human being and become a robot. They, at this point, are
philosophically DEAD. All that's now left is for the body to catch up
with the mind, which has already perished at this point.

Lg

In article , Ed Huntress says...

They didn't have to struggle with it. Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of
default in a potential conflict of rights. The 14th Amendment Due Process
rights, which are the relevant ones, are not established under law nor under
the Constitution for prenatal life. (In the actual decision of this case,
that meant that the state of Texas had no compelling right to prevent an
abortion.) OTOH, the rights of a woman to life and to privacy are
established under law.

No, wait. Gunner had given me a link where the constitution really
*has* determined that a fetus is a human being, from conception.

Oh. Hang on. I seem to have misplaced it. :^)

As the justices themselves said (from the majority opinion of Roe, written
by Blackman): "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine,
philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the
judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a
position to speculate as to the answer."

Ok, then, Blackmun seems to trump Gunner at this place and time....

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

They didn't have to struggle with it. Roe v Wade was decided on the basis
of
default in a potential conflict of rights. The 14th Amendment Due Process
rights, which are the relevant ones, are not established under law nor
under
the Constitution for prenatal life. (In the actual decision of this case,
that meant that the state of Texas had no compelling right to prevent an
abortion.) OTOH, the rights of a woman to life and to privacy are
established under law.

No, wait. Gunner had given me a link where the constitution really
*has* determined that a fetus is a human being, from conception.

Oh. Hang on. I seem to have misplaced it. :^)

As the justices themselves said (from the majority opinion of Roe,
written
by Blackman): "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine,
philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the
judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in
a
position to speculate as to the answer."

Ok, then, Blackmun seems to trump Gunner at this place and time....

Jim

It's worth reading the majority opinion in Roe. It's not particularly long,
maybe a few pages -- unlike the 100 pages of the 5th Circuit Court's
pro-RKBA decision, which I'm sure that some here have read. g

There are common misconceptions about what the case actually decided, and
the basis for their decision. Reading it should clear that up. In addition
to not being terribly long, it's also fairly clear.

Ed Huntress

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:42:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Friday" wrote in message
...

snip

All religious considerations aside: A woman mosy certainly has a right
to her liberty and pursuit of happiness, while a child most certainly
has his or her right to life. _Both_ are inalienabale and unarguable
rights clearly defined in the US Constitution.

The _BIG_ question (as it's ultimately boiled down to) is defining " a
human." Is an egg a human, and thus entitled to the rights guaranteed
in the Constitution? When the egg meets a sperm and the cell spilts
does it then become entitled to the right to life? At 3 months? Three
days? Not until it leaves the womb?

This issue has troubled me for as long as I've been aware of it. I
would _NOT_ want to be a Justice of the SCOTUS, having to struggle with
this one.

They didn't have to struggle with it. Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of
default in a potential conflict of rights. The 14th Amendment Due Process
rights, which are the relevant ones, are not established under law nor under
the Constitution for prenatal life. (In the actual decision of this case,
that meant that the state of Texas had no compelling right to prevent an
abortion.) OTOH, the rights of a woman to life and to privacy are
established under law.

As the justices themselves said (from the majority opinion of Roe, written
by Blackman): "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine,
philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the
judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a
position to speculate as to the answer."

Correct. Roe v. Wade didn't really address either the rights of the
mother, or of the child, or whatever. It addressed the rights of the
government, and stated that the government did not have the right to
impose a particular view. It was, I think, a pretty good call by the
Supreme Court.

Al Moore

"Alan Moore" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:42:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Friday" wrote in message
...

snip

All religious considerations aside: A woman mosy certainly has a right
to her liberty and pursuit of happiness, while a child most certainly
has his or her right to life. _Both_ are inalienabale and unarguable
rights clearly defined in the US Constitution.

The _BIG_ question (as it's ultimately boiled down to) is defining " a
human." Is an egg a human, and thus entitled to the rights guaranteed
in the Constitution? When the egg meets a sperm and the cell spilts
does it then become entitled to the right to life? At 3 months? Three
days? Not until it leaves the womb?

This issue has troubled me for as long as I've been aware of it. I
would _NOT_ want to be a Justice of the SCOTUS, having to struggle with
this one.

They didn't have to struggle with it. Roe v Wade was decided on the basis
of
default in a potential conflict of rights. The 14th Amendment Due Process
rights, which are the relevant ones, are not established under law nor
under
the Constitution for prenatal life. (In the actual decision of this case,
that meant that the state of Texas had no compelling right to prevent an
abortion.) OTOH, the rights of a woman to life and to privacy are
established under law.

As the justices themselves said (from the majority opinion of Roe,
written
by Blackman): "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine,
philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the
judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in
a
position to speculate as to the answer."

Correct. Roe v. Wade didn't really address either the rights of the
mother, or of the child, or whatever. It addressed the rights of the
government, and stated that the government did not have the right to
impose a particular view. It was, I think, a pretty good call by the
Supreme Court.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with that, although, legally, it probably was the
right call. I'll leave the question of whether it was the right moral call
up to others.

The rights of the mother were part of the case. That's why both her right to
life and her privacy came into play -- the latter of which is the reason the
conservative Justices and many other conservatives have gone up a rope over
this case.

The state (Texas) was arguing that it had a compelling interest in limiting
those rights, in order to protect the rights of the unborn. What the Court
decided was that there is no legal basis that established Due Process rights
for the unborn. If you read the case you'll see how the Court dealt with
other matters, such as the presumed right of the unborn to inheritances,
etc. (They are predicated on the assumption that the fetus will be brought
to term and will achieve full rights. In this case, that question was the
issue itself, so using those examples begs the question.)

The point on which the case turned was the conflict between the established
rights of the mother, and the unestablished rights, or lack thereof, of the
unborn. By default, it left the question up to the mother.

Ed Huntress

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:25:45 GMT, Friday wrote:


The _BIG_ question (as it's ultimately boiled down to) is defining " a
human." Is an egg a human, and thus entitled to the rights guaranteed
in the Constitution? When the egg meets a sperm and the cell spilts
does it then become entitled to the right to life? At 3 months? Three
days? Not until it leaves the womb?

Bravo! And notice Ive left all reference to religion out of my posts
on the subject? Im not the slightest bit religious, even if I am
Buddhist (which really is not a religion actually)

Also notice the numbers who have accused me of being a fundie simply
because I argue exactly as you have so well expounded.

The pro abortion crowd cannot stand the idea that they are likely in
violation of the Constitution, which the majority of them consider
only fit to be asswipe, when it interfers with their agenda.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:02:57 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:42:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Friday" wrote in message
...

snip

All religious considerations aside: A woman mosy certainly has a right
to her liberty and pursuit of happiness, while a child most certainly
has his or her right to life. _Both_ are inalienabale and unarguable
rights clearly defined in the US Constitution.

The _BIG_ question (as it's ultimately boiled down to) is defining " a
human." Is an egg a human, and thus entitled to the rights guaranteed
in the Constitution? When the egg meets a sperm and the cell spilts
does it then become entitled to the right to life? At 3 months? Three
days? Not until it leaves the womb?

This issue has troubled me for as long as I've been aware of it. I
would _NOT_ want to be a Justice of the SCOTUS, having to struggle with
this one.

They didn't have to struggle with it. Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of
default in a potential conflict of rights. The 14th Amendment Due Process
rights, which are the relevant ones, are not established under law nor under
the Constitution for prenatal life. (In the actual decision of this case,
that meant that the state of Texas had no compelling right to prevent an
abortion.) OTOH, the rights of a woman to life and to privacy are
established under law.

As the justices themselves said (from the majority opinion of Roe, written
by Blackman): "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine,
philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the
judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a
position to speculate as to the answer."

Correct. Roe v. Wade didn't really address either the rights of the
mother, or of the child, or whatever. It addressed the rights of the
government, and stated that the government did not have the right to
impose a particular view. It was, I think, a pretty good call by the
Supreme Court.

Al Moore

So how come human sacrifice is illegal, even under the guise of a
pagan religion, and if the victim submits voluntarily?
Bigamy and polyandrous religious practices?

After all..thats a violation of the Church and State clause

Of the Feds going nutz about the legalization of pot in California,
when the People voted legal usage?

Seems Scotus thinks that the issue of abortion is such a hot potatoe,
they took the cowards way out.


Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

"Lawrence Glickman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:21:09 GMT, Ted Edwards


At the moment they surrender their free will to the dogma, they cease
to be a human being and become a robot. They, at this point, are
philosophically DEAD. All that's now left is for the body to catch up
with the mind, which has already perished at this point.

Lg


Talk about wrong.

Robots should have at least some claim to being rational.
Religious people are the only true humans
Creatures shapped by evelutionary forces for survival.
How often have the spoils gone to those who claim gods favor.

It's the odd "simple logic" folk that get edited from the race.

To realy flurrish you either need a keen logical mind that goes selectivly
loopy, or be just plane stupid and breed real fast.
Things I can't quite associate with robots.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:12:17 GMT, "Dan Buckman" wrote:


"Lawrence Glickman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:21:09 GMT, Ted Edwards


At the moment they surrender their free will to the dogma, they cease
to be a human being and become a robot. They, at this point, are
philosophically DEAD. All that's now left is for the body to catch up
with the mind, which has already perished at this point.

Lg


Talk about wrong.

I see nothing at all either incorrect or *wrong* with my posted
statement. It stands by itself. You have said nothing to persuade me
of any incorrectness in my statement.

Lg


Robots should have at least some claim to being rational.
Religious people are the only true humans
Creatures shapped by evelutionary forces for survival.
How often have the spoils gone to those who claim gods favor.

It's the odd "simple logic" folk that get edited from the race.

To realy flurrish you either need a keen logical mind that goes selectivly
loopy, or be just plane stupid and breed real fast.
Things I can't quite associate with robots.

"Lawrence Glickman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:12:17 GMT, "Dan Buckman" wrote:


"Lawrence Glickman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:21:09 GMT, Ted Edwards


At the moment they surrender their free will to the dogma, they cease
to be a human being and become a robot. They, at this point, are
philosophically DEAD. All that's now left is for the body to catch up
with the mind, which has already perished at this point.

Lg


Talk about wrong.

I see nothing at all either incorrect or *wrong* with my posted
statement. It stands by itself. You have said nothing to persuade me
of any incorrectness in my statement.

Lg


Good work , you have pointed out a verry good irrationality that rivals
religion in survival value.
DeNile.
The important thing is to present a facade of total rationality at the same
time, good grammar and smart word selection are always helpfull here. Some
people include bibliographies, facts (don't need to be related, just look
authoritive), or drop other famos refrences. The important thing is to look
smart, sane, and reasonable while helping your self advance at the cost of
others. It's just so much silliness to try to keep church and state seprate,
they are afterall only sperable by the thickness of one coin.

I see this is cross posted to several news groups , If you would like any
more tips on life from me I will only be replying in the news group I am
reading (rec crafts metalworking).
You can make my sojurn shorter (get rid of me) by buying the myford I have
posted , It's not as fun as bashing religion but it would give you
something to hone your problem solving skills. I just wish you were right
about them being more important than your irrational skills.
It is a little more closely related to metalworking than gunners medical
bills. or what ever it is I just poked into here.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:25:02 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

The trouble/problem with most/all religions is that they pre-empt
personal decision making and personal responsibility.

A devout anybody has become enslaved to the rules and regulations as
laid forth in the texts. There is comfort in following these texts
for many people, as it absolves them of the difficulty of answering
the Difficult Questions and absolves them therefore of any
responsibility for the outcome of their actions.

At the moment they surrender their free will to the dogma, they cease
to be a human being and become a robot. They, at this point, are
philosophically DEAD. All that's now left is for the body to catch up
with the mind, which has already perished at this point.

Lg


Very keen observation Glickman... that explains what has happened to
America.. as the society has become more secular... and the numbers of
those active in churches decline... the condition of the churches left
that have been corrupted by F.A.Gs ..... etc...the state has now
enslaved the masses with "liberal" laws, regulations and rituals to
perpetuate their growth and control... over the masses...

As the ACLU continues to strip any remaining evidence and symbols of
"christian" history from our society.. they replace it with the god
called "can't help myself cause I was raised this way" and
consequently enslave the population to superstitious propaganda
promoted by the F.A.G.s and Atheists.

Now with God supposedly out of the picture, and human responsibility
and accountability tossed out... the F.A.G.s, the ACLU and the liberal
establishment have completely stolen the so called "will" of the
people and turned them into mindless robots.

So as you have so keenly stated: Americans are dead. They have no
soul. No purpose. No reason to exist except to work, pay taxes, serve
the city, state, and federal government employees. And of course post
in newsgroups under the delusion that they are free and have something
worthwhile to say....

Forever sleeping their lives away in the utopia world of Cliff-Glick
land.

Mike

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
Original Meaning of Free Speech in America.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:45:16 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:25:02 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

The trouble/problem with most/all religions is that they pre-empt
personal decision making and personal responsibility.

A devout anybody has become enslaved to the rules and regulations as
laid forth in the texts. There is comfort in following these texts
for many people, as it absolves them of the difficulty of answering
the Difficult Questions and absolves them therefore of any
responsibility for the outcome of their actions.

At the moment they surrender their free will to the dogma, they cease
to be a human being and become a robot. They, at this point, are
philosophically DEAD. All that's now left is for the body to catch up
with the mind, which has already perished at this point.

Lg


Very keen observation Glickman... that explains what has happened to
America.. as the society has become more secular... and the numbers of
those active in churches decline... the condition of the churches left
that have been corrupted by F.A.Gs ..... etc...the state has now
enslaved the masses with "liberal" laws, regulations and rituals to
perpetuate their growth and control... over the masses...

I have to agree with all the above.

As the ACLU continues to strip any remaining evidence and symbols of
"christian" history

Thank your god.

from our society.. they replace it with the god
called "can't help myself cause I was raised this way" and
consequently enslave the population to superstitious propaganda
promoted by the F.A.G.s and Atheists.

By the time most *kids* leave elementary school, the dirty work has
already been done. Before they even know what happened to them.

Now with God supposedly out of the picture, and human responsibility
and accountability tossed out...

No, we're NOT tossing out human responsibility and accountability.
That remains. But now it is a PERSONAL responsibility and
accountability. You're not marching under anybody else's flags
anymore, or wearing their Aegis on your Shield.

the F.A.G.s, the ACLU and the liberal
establishment have completely stolen the so called "will" of the
people and turned them into mindless robots.

See above. Anybody who makes it through *middle school* with their
minds still in tact is an anomaly, and an Enemy of the State.

So as you have so keenly stated: Americans are dead.

How can it be else wise? You have no independent ideas anymore, they
are verboten. You wouldn't be able to come up with an independent
idea if your life depended on it.

They have no
soul. No purpose. No reason to exist except to work, pay taxes, serve
the city, state, and federal government employees.

Sounds about -right- to me. That's about all that is left.

And of course post
in newsgroups under the delusion that they are free and have something
worthwhile to say....

Yep

Forever sleeping their lives away in the utopia world of Cliff-Glick
land.

It is Utopia to those who don't live there. For those few that Do
live there, it is real, it is here, it is now.

Lg


Mike

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
Original Meaning of Free Speech in America.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:02:57 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

Correct. Roe v. Wade didn't really address either the rights of the
mother, or of the child, or whatever. It addressed the rights of the
government, and stated that the government did not have the right to
impose a particular view. It was, I think, a pretty good call by the
Supreme Court.

Al Moore


yes... it was a good decision in that it planted the seed and
established the pattern of how to deceive the masses with obscure and
sneaky court decisions that could then be twisted and perverted so the
masses... would think it there was actually a law making "killing
fetuses" the law of the land.

Then a non-profit could be established to implement the law and thus
billions could be obtained for services, tax dollars, and insurance
companies... etc..

It made no difference that the circumstances of the individual used as
this test case.. was carefully picked, lied to.. and used for the
propaganda of others.... what mattered was that no matter who.. no
matter who died... no matter what had to be done... abortions must be
made legal...

And so our judicial system.... continues to operate today...


Mike

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:50:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The point on which the case turned was the conflict between the established
rights of the mother, and the unestablished rights, or lack thereof, of the
unborn. By default, it left the question up to the mother.

Ed Huntress


Ed... not like you.. tell us the rest of the story.. and the details
of how this particular woman was chosen for the case?

Cliff-Glick Syndrome got you too?

Mike

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:23:42 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote:

I see nothing at all either incorrect or *wrong* with my posted
statement. It stands by itself. You have said nothing to persuade me
of any incorrectness in my statement.

Lg


Cliff-Glick Syndrome stage 3: Denial and smugness